Sunday, 15 December 2013

A current petition on the No10 website has highlighted a flaw in the rules that allows MPs and Lords to vote and debate on legislation that may gain revenue for a company that either they own, which employs them or donates to their office.

If you are a local councillor such interests would debar you from a vote and debate at the discretion of the chamber.
Now that the petition has reached over 10,000, the government has been forced to respond, so how do they justify such a difference?

The petition made several demands.

i. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest;

and

ii. No member of Parliament may speak or vote in a debate on legislation which could financially benefit any commercial operation which has made - or currently makes - donations to themselves personally or their political party.

In response the government stated that it would “not be practical” to prevent Members speaking or voting on legislation which could “financially benefit any commercial operation in which they have a financial interest” or which has made “donations to themselves of (or) their party”. The reason? Because a “significant number of legislative provisions in any year may have beneficial financial implications for all or most commercial operations.”

In terms of donations to the party, as a whole, then this is probably correct. For example, if a person connected to a private health company gave money to a political party, it may make a member of the public mistrust the party, especially if they then go on to win contracts but it is unreasonable to think that this would be enough to debar the entire party from voting on any legislation on legislation that may have an affect on private health and would bring Parliament to a halt.

However, the government claims that it would “not be practical” to prevent a MP from voting with a financial interest is absurd and arrogant. The government says there are many “questions” as to how such a “complex requirement” could be “policed effectively”?

Well, they need look no further than the rules that apply to councillors at a local level. Any prejudicial interest held by a councillor would debar them from a vote and indeed a debate depending on the acceptance of the Chamber.

This current situation suggests that MPs and Lords are somehow more able to separate their public duty from their outside interest, which is patently absurd. Given the level of commercial interests that exist in parliament, the need to change the rules to match those at local level is obvious.

Take Baroness Cumberlege, the Conservative Peer and former Health Secretary. She owns a company that she moved into a position to gain revenue from the new Commissioning Groups, a key component of the Health bill on which she voted. The legislation goes through thanks in part to her vote and she ends up winning small contracts for providing courses to some of the new Commissioning Groups. It’s okay though, because she put her business interest in the Register.

Over 200 parliamentarians had recent or present financial interests to companies or individuals involved in healthcare at the time of the Health and Social Care bill. They were all able to vote, despite these interests. Further research has confirmed that some of these companies attached to Lords either by employment or donations, have gone on to gain contracts in the new NHS.

The fact of the matter is that in their current form, the rules allow any MP or Lord to vote on legislation that may open revenue opportunities for the companies that employ them or donate to them. The rules are different for local councillors who manage to police such matters adequately.

Until MPs and Lords are debarred from a vote when they have a prejudicial interest, then every time they place their vote it will be difficult to know whether their action was in the interest of the public or the corporation that employs them.

The government will always resist further scrutiny, just as they did when a proposal was made for a Register of Interests back in 1974. I leave you with this:

“Should the public know of our outside interests? My answer strictly
speaking, is ‘No’. Why should they? There is no opportunity for
corruption and precious little opportunity for influence…We are not
crooks and we want it to be seen that we are not crooks. We are in the
public eye and we hold jobs, which in the eyes of the public are very
important. Conservative MP for Lowestoft, James Prior 22nd May, 1974 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1974/may/22/members-interests

Friday, 13 December 2013

A new set of communications has brought into
question the neutrality of the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary
Organisations (ACEVO), on the outcome of the Health and Social Care bill.

When the Health and Social Care bill came to a shuddering halt following
widespread rejection across the medical profession, the government paused the
process to set up a Forum in what turned
out to be a faux ‘listening exercise.’

The head of the ‘Choice and Competition’ element to the Forum was Sir Stephen
Bubb, the Chief Executive of ACEVO. Sir Bubb’s preference for competition in
the NHS was no secret; he openly called
for the “health and social care market to be opened up” and consistently voiced
his support for more competition.

However, throughout the period of the farcical
‘listening exercise’, ACEVO said they did not take a position on the Health and
Social Care bill, and were neither for it or against it. This view was repeated in March
2012 when they said "ACEVO has not taken a position on the controversial
health bill as a whole."

The email
However, a Freedom of Information request has unearthed an email written on the
17th August 2011, just after the ‘listening’ period that brings this
statement into serious doubt. The author of the email is unknown because the
name was redacted. The person thanked David Bennett, the head of the NHS regulator Monitor, for a ‘roundtable summary.’ It
stated how it was good to see…that so many participants…place ‘choice’ at the
top of priorities for Monitor.’ If ACEVO were not taking a position on the
Health bill, then why are ACEVO in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good'
people at the meeting were placing 'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely,
if they do not take a position such a priority would be neither good nor bad as
far as ACEVO are concerned.

Furthermore, the author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate'
(discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out
on reform and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting
discreet? What did they have to hide?

ACEVO did indeed attend a roundtable meeting with Monitor hosted at the
offices of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with representatives from
voluntary organisations that included CEOs from Asthma UK, Action on Hearing
loss and Diabetes UK. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the new
regulators' new role and purpose'.

Lobbying letter

This email follows on from the recent revelation uncovered
by Social Investigations that Sir Stephen Bubb had teamed up alongside private
healthcare trade and lobby group, the NHS Partners Network to urge Jeremy Hunt not
to water down the secondary legislation, S.75 privatisation regulations. The letter carried the ACEVO logo, which strongly suggests this lobbying letter was in agreement with ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb acting alone. Acevo are not ambivalent to the outcome of the the Health and Social Care bill, but have actively lobbied to ensure competition remains a key component of the new NHS.

ACEVO have twice been contacted to answer questions on their neutrality and have so far
refused to answer.

Questions
The questions are below and we welcome a response at any time.

1) If ACEVO were not taking a position on the Health bill, then why are ACEVO
in an email to Monitor saying it is 'good' people at the meeting were placing
'choice' as a priority for Monitor. Surely, if they do not take a position such
a priority would be neither good nor bad as far as ACEVO are concerned?

2) Also, the names are redacted - who wrote the email?

3) The author of the email also suggested Monitor hold a 'desecrate' (discreet) meeting with ACEVO members to 'bounce ideas off and sound them out on reform
and competition'. Why was it suggested to make this meeting discreet?

4) The letter is sent with the ACEVO logo on it. It is therefore logical to assume, this
position is that of ACEVO and not Sir Stephen Bubb. Is
this the case?

5) Was this letter written by both Sir Stephen
and David Worskett?

6) By sending this letter out on behalf of ACEVO, is it right to assume members
of ACEVO were contacted about this before the letter went out? If not, then is
it normal practice to send out lobbying letters on behalf of the membership
without consent?